My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality
The author argues that the meaning of the Bible's passages on homosexuality have been lost in translation.
May 15th, 2012
05:39 PM ET

My Take: What the Bible really says about homosexuality

Editor's note: Daniel A. Helminiak, who was ordained a priest in Rome, is a theologian, psychotherapist and author of “What the Bible Really Says about homosexuality" and books on contemporary spirituality. He is a professor of psychology at the University of West Georgia.

By Daniel A. Helminiak, Special to CNN

President Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage, like blood in the water, has conservative sharks circling for a kill. In a nation that touts separation of religion and government, religious-based arguments command this battle. Lurking beneath anti-gay forays, you inevitably find religion and, above all, the Bible.

We now face religious jingoism, the imposition of personal beliefs on the whole pluralistic society. Worse still, these beliefs are irrational, just a fiction of blind conviction. Nowhere does the Bible actually oppose homosexuality.

In the past 60 years, we have learned more about sex, by far, than in preceding millennia. Is it likely that an ancient people, who thought the male was the basic biological model and the world flat, understood homosexuality as we do today? Could they have even addressed the questions about homosexuality that we grapple with today? Of course not.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

Hard evidence supports this commonsensical expectation. Taken on its own terms, read in the original languages, placed back into its historical context, the Bible is ho-hum on homosexuality, unless – as with heterosexuality – injustice and abuse are involved.

That, in fact, was the case among the Sodomites (Genesis 19), whose experience is frequently cited by modern anti-gay critics. The Sodomites wanted to rape the visitors whom Lot, the one just man in the city, welcomed in hospitality for the night.

The Bible itself is lucid on the sin of Sodom: pride, lack of concern for the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16:48-49); hatred of strangers and cruelty to guests (Wisdom 19:13); arrogance (Sirach/Ecclesiaticus 16:8); evildoing, injustice, oppression of the widow and orphan (Isaiah 1:17); adultery (in those days, the use of another man’s property), and lying (Jeremiah 23:12).

But nowhere are same-sex acts named as the sin of Sodom. That intended gang rape only expressed the greater sin, condemned in the Bible from cover to cover: hatred, injustice, cruelty, lack of concern for others. Hence, Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 19:19; Mark 12:31); and “By this will they know you are my disciples” (John 13:35).

How inverted these values have become! In the name of Jesus, evangelicals and Catholic bishops make sex the Christian litmus test and are willing to sacrifice the social safety net in return.

The longest biblical passage on male-male sex is Romans 1:26-27: "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another."

The Greek term para physin has been translated unnatural; it should read atypical or unusual. In the technical sense, yes, the Stoic philosophers did use para physin to mean unnatural, but this term also had a widespread popular meaning. It is this latter meaning that informs Paul's writing. It carries no ethical condemnation.

Compare the passage on male-male sex to Romans 11:24. There, Paul applies the term para physin to God. God grafted the Gentiles into the Jewish people, a wild branch into a cultivated vine. Not your standard practice! An unusual thing to do — atypical, nothing more. The anti-gay "unnatural" hullabaloo rests on a mistranslation.

Besides, Paul used two other words to describe male-male sex: dishonorable (1:24, 26) and unseemly (1:27). But for Paul, neither carried ethical weight. In 2 Corinthians 6:8 and 11:21, Paul says that even he was held in dishonor — for preaching Christ. Clearly, these words merely indicate social disrepute, not truly unethical behavior.

In this passage Paul is referring to the ancient Jewish Law: Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” of a man’s lying with another man. Paul sees male-male sex as an impurity, a taboo, uncleanness — in other words, “abomination.” Introducing this discussion in 1:24, he says so outright: "God gave them up … to impurity."

But Jesus taught lucidly that Jewish requirements for purity — varied cultural traditions — do not matter before God. What matters is purity of heart.

“It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles,” reads Matthew 15. “What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”

Or again, Jesus taught, “Everyone who looks at a women with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Jesus rejected the purity requirements of the Jewish Law.

In calling it unclean, Paul was not condemning male-male sex. He had terms to express condemnation. Before and after his section on sex, he used truly condemnatory terms: godless, evil, wicked or unjust, not to be done. But he never used ethical terms around that issue of sex.

As for marriage, again, the Bible is more liberal than we hear today. The Jewish patriarchs had many wives and concubines. David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, and Daniel and the palace master were probably lovers.

The Bible’s Song of Songs is a paean to romantic love with no mention of children or a married couple. Jesus never mentioned same-sex behaviors, although he did heal the “servant” — pais, a Greek term for male lover — of the Roman Centurion.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Paul discouraged marriage because he believed the world would soon end. Still, he encouraged people with sexual needs to marry, and he never linked sex and procreation.

Were God-given reason to prevail, rather than knee-jerk religion, we would not be having a heated debate over gay marriage. “Liberty and justice for all,” marvel at the diversity of creation, welcome for one another: these, alas, are true biblical values.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel A. Helminiak.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Bible • Christianity • Gay marriage • Opinion

soundoff (8,832 Responses)
  1. ms.abri

    and Christians are supposed to love not judge , only judge ourselves, and really do the best you can, but if you want to do better try Jesus.and read the word for yourself i would hate to go to hell just guessing what im doing is right than being told the truth to do better.

    May 17, 2012 at 10:27 am |
  2. lunchbreaker

    BamaDaniel, I've got a story for you, with some places familiar to you. I recieved a degree in goelogy form the University of Alabama. Now I'm not going to use that as the basis for my claim because anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. But here's something you can varify. A man by the name of Dr. Harold Stowell was the head of the gelogy department. He got his undergraduate from your favorite team, Florida State, and subsequently his PHD from Princeton. (You can google that if you wish). He would say you are wrong about anything you just said about Noah's flood. So you think you know more than him about the earth because you read National Geographic?

    May 17, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • blooddump

      Bamadan is pwnd.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:27 am |
  3. Doc Vestibule

    Can you explain how a 450 foot boat with no climate control or separate habitats was able to house 2 of every animal on the planet?
    Or how the entire human race was repopulated by a sinle family with all of the males sharing cosanguinity, yet never encountering any in-breeding issues? I sure hope that I'm still getting frisky like Noah when I turn 500 years old.

    May 17, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      About repopultion, Noah's daughters got him drunk and took turns with him.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Only some animals made it .read care fully.evolutions say a calamity pushed us to the edge of extinction only one or two breeding pairs of adults that's why we have so many defects we're all related

      May 17, 2012 at 9:26 am |
    • blooddump

      Your either a huge troll or a fvcking retard if you believe any of that rubbish.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      My bad, that wasn't Noah, it was Lot.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • Oz in OK

      Well it's interesting to me that there is mention made of some kind of catastrophic 'flood' in many ancient mythologies... so it's possible that there *was* some type of cataclysm... but a 450 foot boat made of gopher wood full of animals for more than a year (according to the Bible narrative) somehow kept alive by Noah and his family? Uh huh.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • Primewonk

      Bama, your profound ignorance of science is showing. You understand nothing of the field of population genetics. In order for a population of a species to survive there has to be sufficient genetic diversity. In mammals, for example, this iss usually a couple hundred breeding pairs. With only a single breeding pair a population would die out within a few generations.

      You seriously need to spend less time getting your "sciency" sounding information from "Pastor Dave". The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is just as ignorant about science as you are.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Nat. Geo.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Noah story for that region dummy. Others survived flood .google Eskimo flood myth.better yet go to books a million

      May 17, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • blooddump

      Your basing your argument by citing a tv show on the national geographic channel that explores a theory of a possible ancient flood in the middle east? Your chair has no legs, anything you present should be immediately dismissed. All of your post are so utterly poposterous it is laughable. Not only are you a fool your all so gullible. Take off the bible blinders. No god bans.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Not the show the mag. Don't go to church God isn't there man is. Article was about global myths not just noahs.based on research by a renown university

      May 17, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Primewonk

      Sorry Bama, but no. In Genesis 6:7 your god clearly says he plans to kill every person, animal, and other living thing, on the earth. And in Genesis 7:21-23, your god clearly says that in fact he accompolished this, killing everyone and everything not on the boat.

      So, either your god was wrong, and he couldn't kill everyone. Or your god lied about killing everyone. Either way, it makes him not much of a real god, doesn't it?

      May 17, 2012 at 10:05 am |
    • blooddump

      Your god is a pusssah!

      May 17, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      I repeat not a thumper my God didn't right anything man dif

      May 17, 2012 at 10:15 am |
  4. Primewonk

    Sanktafied wrote, "@ the post about gays having made no choice about being gay is absurd. To say that God created gay people is the same as defending sociopathic murders...."it's not my fault I killed 20 people....God must have made this way, i had no choice. so i'm innocent" that's just ridiculous. Its always been about choice!"

    Over the past 15-20 years folks like you have posted this hundreds of thousands of times – that gays choose to gay.

    And just as often we have asked folks like you to back-up your claim. To post the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific research that shows gays choose to be gay – and thus by corollary, that straights choose to be straight.

    To be fair, we have posted hundreds of citations to peer-reviewed science showing the biological multivarite nature of sèxual orientation.

    After thousand and thousands of requests, not a single solitary one of you have posted single solitary citation. Not once. Ever. Nor have any of you ever refuted a single solitary one of our citations.

    Why is that? Why do each and every one of you refuse to back up what you claim is true?

    May 17, 2012 at 9:02 am |
  5. Primewonk

    BamaDaniel wrote, "I can explain biblical flood scientifi cally."

    Then by all means, do so. Please include references to peer-reviewed science that supports your explanation.

    Also, please promise us, that when we raise specific questions to your explanation, that you will respond to those questions.

    May 17, 2012 at 8:52 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Meteor strike in south Atlantic blew away part of earths crust.threw massive amount of hydrates into air hydrogen mixed with oxygen rich atmosphere.it rain.ed alot there's your flood

      May 17, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • bloodsucker


      May 17, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • BamaDaniel


      May 17, 2012 at 9:30 am |
    • Primewonk

      Bama – you forgot to include the citations to the peer-reviewed scientic research. Also, in organic and inorganic chemistry, hydrates are compounds that already contain water.

      If you think a meteor caused enough rain to flood the earth, please explain how this meteor created a billion cubic miles of water. Because that is how much water it will take to rraise the water level above Everest.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:40 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Released they hydrogen has from the hydrates

      May 17, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Primewonk

      Bama – why would you release hydrogen from water to then form water?

      Please post the citations to the peer-reviewed science that supports what you are saying.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:52 am |
  6. Oriental People Aren't That Bad

    Christians are stupid. Dumb as bricks!

    May 17, 2012 at 8:35 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Yangs drive stupid

      May 17, 2012 at 8:44 am |
    • Sanktafied

      @ the post about gays having made no choice about being gay is absurd. To say that God created gay people is the same as defending sociopathic murders...."it's not my fault I killed 20 people....God must have made this way, i had no choice. so i'm innocent" that's just ridiculous. Its always been about choice!

      May 17, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • sam stone

      Sanktafed: Absurd comparison.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:06 am |
    • LinCA


      You said, "To say that God created gay people is the same as defending sociopathic murders...."it's not my fault I killed 20 people....God must have made this way, i had no choice. so i'm innocent" that's just ridiculous."
      It takes a very special kind of stupid to equate the behavior done out of love, with that of psychopathic murderers. Because gays don't cause harm because they are gay, there is no reason to prohibit it, even if it was a choice.

      You said, "Its always been about choice!"
      It's obvious that you disapprove of homosexuality. Would it be fair to assume you identify as heterosexual? If so, that leaves two options, either you are heterosexual, or you are not, but choose to identify as such.

      If you were heterosexual, you would have a very convincing argument of why sexuality isn't a choice (namely yourself never having to have made the choice). I must therefor conclude that you must have made the choice to be heterosexual, but really aren't.

      That would be consistent with a study that showed that homophobic men are much more likely to be aroused by male homosexual acts than heterosexual men that are not homophobic.

      While I realize that your ilk make it very difficult to gays to acknowledge and reveal their sexuality, there are others that are working hard to make this country a safer place. I am hopeful that there will come a time when you can be openly gay, and not have to hide from people like yourself.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • momoya

      LinCA doesn't argue with concepts but does the only thing she can: She simply plays with words–no arguments–no meanings–no point–no reason.. Just twist and contort every word that comes down the pike.. What she fails to realize is that anybody can do what she's dooing–the rest of us have just moved past such a middle schooler tactic.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • LinCA


      Did you read my comment?

      My points are that:
      1) Homosexual acts are no more detrimental to society than heterosexual acts.
      Because there is no harm in the practice, there is no reason to outlaw them.

      2) Being gay is not a choice.
      Anyone who is straight probably knows he/she didn't choose to be straight. There is no reason to assume anyone else would have that choice either. In a society as openly hostile to homosexuality as the US, "choosing" to be gay makes no sense if you are not. Being gay in the US puts you at a very high risk for discrimination, bullying and even physical harm.

      That leaves how you act as a choice. There are plenty good reasons (see above) for people that are gay to act as if they are not, and very few, if any, for those that are straight to act as if they are not.

      Those that claim that hob>mosexuality is a choice, must have reached that position from one of two conditions.
      a) They have been told that it is a choice, and never questioned it, or
      b) They consider acting on it to be a choice, and find it perfectly acceptable to demand that gays act differently from who they are.

      The people in category a are ignorant (willfully or otherwise) as there is no disagreement over the question in the scientific world.

      Those in category b are bigots for expecting others to not act on their sexuality, just because they find it "icky" or not in accordance with their beliefs. This group probably also contains a fairly large number of closeted gays. These closeted gays may act the way they do for a number of reasons. They may be trying to mask their own homosexuality, or they may feel that if they need to stay in the closet, everybody else should too.

      Research indicates that there is a correlation between homophobia and arousal by homosexual imagery. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

      May 17, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  7. Bootyfunk

    it's been fun, BamaDaniel, but it's 2am here in hawaii. time for bed.

    have fun spreading ignorance and hating g.ays for no reason.

    see ya tomorrow! >8D

    May 17, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      That's Genesis two. What about flood. See ya headed to work 720 am in Bama .

      May 17, 2012 at 8:21 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Oldest sister was in a lesbian relationship for 15 years I know some good gays nothing against the person.I love women and think. every man should my rights

      May 17, 2012 at 8:24 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      what about the flood? it never happened. you say it did - evidence? post legitimate website with a legitimate scientist that claims there was a great flood.

      btw, you realize there is a finite amount of water on earth?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:24 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      so female g.ays are okay, but male g.ays aren't?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:25 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      You should read more stay up to date oceanographers say more water under oceanfloor than on surface.Do your own reading .PS. All gays ok just don't marry

      May 17, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • sam stone

      Equal protection. Equal rights. If it displeases your god, then perhaps your god should not be governing

      May 17, 2012 at 9:23 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      My God ain't write nothing you got the wrong believer

      May 17, 2012 at 9:39 am |
  8. BamaDaniel

    Read verse 20 booty

    May 17, 2012 at 8:09 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      read genesis 2. doesn't say that.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:17 am |
  9. Reality

    Ho-mose-xuality in the 21st century:


    "Abrahamics" believe that their god created all of us and of course that includes the g-ay members of the human race. Also, those who have studied ho-mo-se-xuality have determined that there is no choice involved therefore ga-ys are ga-y because god made them that way.

    To wit:

    o The Royal College of Psy-chiatrists stated in 2007:

    “ Despite almost a century of psy-choanalytic and psy-chological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heteros-exual or hom-ose-xual orientation. It would appear that s-exual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of ge-netic factors and the early ut-erine environment. Se-xual orientation is therefore not a choice.[60] "

    "Garcia-Falgueras and Swaab state in the abstract of their 2010 study, "The fe-tal brain develops during the intraut-erine period in the male direction through a direct action of tes-tosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hor-mone surge. In this way, our gender identi-ty (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and s-exual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender ident–ity or s-exual orientation."[8

    See also the Philadelphia Inquirer review “Gay Gene, Deconstructed”, 12/12/2011. Said review addresses the following “How do genes associated with ho-mose-xuality avoid being weeded out by Darwinian evolution?”

    Of course, those gays who belong to Abrahamic religions supposedly abide by the rules of no adu-ltery or for-nication allowed.

    And because of basic biology differences said monogamous ventures should always be called same-se-x unions not same-se-x marriages.

    From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, ga-y s-exual activity is still mutual mas-turbation caused by one or more complex s-exual differences. Some differences are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell.


    May 17, 2012 at 8:07 am |
  10. BamaDaniel

    Booty,answer this. What do you say when the Bible and science say the same thing.oh and its Not gods word.

    May 17, 2012 at 7:53 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      provide an example, pls.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:55 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Both say life began in ocean,global flood,more stars in universe than sand grains on earth .both say giant animals were on the plant in the past. What's your opinion?.as a science lover I like multiple sources the older the better

      May 17, 2012 at 8:01 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      no, both do not say life began in the ocean. copy and paste from the bible and show me where it says life began in the ocean. you're making a false claim.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:04 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

      24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind: and it was so.

      25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

      26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

      hmmmmmmm..... looks like God says life began on land to me.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:06 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      I sent you chapter and verse

      May 17, 2012 at 8:07 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Verse 20 dummy you started with verse 23 nice trick

      May 17, 2012 at 8:08 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      there are 2 stories of creation. they don't match. genesis 1 says one thing - genesis 2 says another. how do you choose which fairy tale to believe?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • Primewonk

      Bama claims that science and the bible agree on a global flood. It now behooves you to provide citations to peer-reviewed scientific research that there was a global flood 4000 years ago that killed every human, other animals, and all plants not on a boat.

      You also stated science and the bible agree that life started in the ocean. You offer up Genesis 1:20 as evidence. So lets take a look at that verse – And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” Really? Seriously? First life was not "creatures". It was, in all propability singel-cell prokaryotes. And birds just magically appeared? No. Birds evolved from land animals, which your god didn't get around to creating later.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • Kalessin

      On the topic of the flood, there was an interesting NatGeo (I think that's right) show about the possiblity that the flood was caused by the Black Sea breaking up/flooding over it's banks in such a way that it swept over a massive amount of the Tigris/Euphrates area. Such a disaster would seem "global" to those that might have been in the middle of it.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Didn't say 4000 yes ago. Scientist give older age.flying fish evolved to aquatic birds.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:54 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      Chapter and verse of a book no one believes in; so what? I can settle this by quoting from LORD OF THE RINGS, because it's a book.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:16 am |
    • Primewonk

      @Kalessin – you seem to think that a large flood would appear global. Well, let's take a look at what your god said. In Genesis 6:7 he said, " the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them. ” Then during the flood he said, in Genesis 7 , " thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth."

      So clearly, your god said he was going to kill every one and every thing on earth. And after the flood begins, he, in fact, claims that is exactly what he did.

      So either your god lied, and he didn't kill everything, or he was wrong, and he couldn't kill everything.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • Primewonk

      BamaDaniel wrote, " Didn't say 4000 yes ago. Scientist give older age.flying fish evolved to aquatic birds."

      Then you should have absolutely no problem providing citations where scientists claim there was a global flood that killed everyone and everything.

      Also provide the citations showing that aquatic birds evolved from flying fish.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Kalessin

      @Primewonk- So accusational.

      "you seem to think that a large flood would appear global."

      ~You confused over what "large" is in this case. We are talking about 60,000 sq miles in this theory. I would guess if one was within the flooded zone it could very well seem global to a person back in that time.

      "Well, let's take a look at what your god said."

      ~Actually...that is what the author of Genesis wrote that God said. Just to be clear 😉

      "So either your god lied, and he didn't kill everything, or he was wrong, and he couldn't kill everything."

      ~Or...none of that and you are making an error in @ssuming I am a literalist.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Primewonk

      Kalessin, If you are not a literalist, I apologize for assuming you were.

      So, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't literal in your bible?

      May 17, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • Kalessin

      @Primewonk- not a problem

      "So, how do you decide what is literal and what isn't literal in your bible?"

      ~Personally, research and study are key. Cross referencing with theologians and science. Also just taking the time to think it through. I've never believed that people should have blind faith no matter what it applies to. I know people that believe in evolution as much as those who believe in the Transfiguration but will not have anymore knowledge of the concept than the religious person.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • momoya

      What a stupid god; can't keep blatant falsehoods out of his own book, and then he still expects people to put their faith in him..

      May 18, 2012 at 11:09 am |
  11. BamaDaniel

    Booty ,I love you,you love me ,we a happy family with a great big hug and a kids from me to you ,won't you say you love me too

    May 17, 2012 at 7:47 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      of course i love you, BamaDaniel. i love all my brothers.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:47 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Booty ,women self lubricate.mmmmmm woman juice,you should try it sometimes

      May 17, 2012 at 7:50 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      you wouldn't know a good time if it sat on your face and wiggled.

      btw, you married? premarital s.ex is a sin!

      May 17, 2012 at 7:54 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      No not married .don't give a damn

      May 17, 2012 at 7:58 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      you're not married because no woman would touch you.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:08 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      I'll send.you a family photo we're not into church like some but jobs just believe men for women

      May 17, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      seriously, why are you so h.omophobic? why do you care what g.ay people do? how does it affect you?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:16 am |
  12. Bootyfunk

    God = fail

    May 17, 2012 at 7:29 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Science says life began in the ocean guess what? So does the Bible .

      May 17, 2012 at 7:43 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      pls site where it says this in the bible. chapter and verse.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:54 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Genesis 1 verse 20

      May 17, 2012 at 8:05 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      you realize there are two stories of creation in genesis and they conflict? genesis 2 says otherwise. do you just pick the one you like best?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:11 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Uh no I pick the one that science validates

      May 17, 2012 at 8:12 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      so the other story of creation in the bible is wrong?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:15 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      I pick the one that science validates I wasn't there.won't argue about it.what about global flood science says it happened

      May 17, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      there is absolutely no evidence of a global flood. science says it happened? post your evidence pls. where are you getting this false information?

      May 17, 2012 at 8:20 am |
    • Cq

      Actually, Genesis says that land plants were the first life on the planet, but then, in Genesis 2:5-7, second creation account God creates man before he creates the plants, which is really wonky. The Bible also says that there was light before the sun was created and that the sky was a firmament separating the ocean from the waters in the sky, amongst other things. So, no, you can't raise Genesis up as being eerily close to modern scientific knowledge.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:26 am |
    • Cq

      Actually, Genesis says that land plants were the first life on the planet, but then, in the second creation account God creates man before he creates the plants, which is really wonky. The Bible also says that there was light before the sun was created and that the sky was a firmament (solid vault) separating the ocean from the waters in the sky. So, no, you can't raise Genesis up as being eerily close to modern scientific knowledge.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:29 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      I read and watch alot nat. Geo. and disc.channel. Geology mags. Did you know volcanoes don't come from the mantle or core.I can explain biblical flood scientifi cally.

      May 17, 2012 at 8:32 am |
    • Cq

      In the off chance that you have some new, and even more imaginative "scientific explanation" for the biblical flood, please feel free to give it.

      May 17, 2012 at 9:53 am |
  13. Oriental People Aren't That Bad

    Ray Comfort and pretty much every other christian on the planet. Dumb as a BRICK.


    May 17, 2012 at 7:10 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      LOL! bananas are proof god created humans. LOL!

      May 17, 2012 at 7:25 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      These guys are so gay, and they don't seem to realize it.

      May 17, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
  14. BamaDaniel

    To gay couples you don't need something that the Bible says men and women should do to validate your lives.just move on with it you are what you think you are. Out of fairness to a person you should be able to say this person can speak for me if I am unable to speak for myself married or not

    May 17, 2012 at 7:07 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      we need the Rosetta Stone to understand what you're saying. pls try to make sense.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:26 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      I speak straight language maybe if I put a gay lisp with it you can understand

      May 17, 2012 at 7:31 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      if by g.ay to mean coherent, then yes, that would help.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:39 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      No I mean gay as in hey girl .

      May 17, 2012 at 7:41 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      you seem to be a connoisseur of h.omos.exuality. when you go down on a man, do you go mouth only or are you good with your hands too?

      May 17, 2012 at 7:42 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      My foot up they gay ass

      May 17, 2012 at 7:44 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      so you're into foot s.ex with g.ays?

      pro tip: use a crazy amount of lube. you really can't use too much.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:46 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Yep I'm pitching open your mouth I got size 13 shoe love you long time

      May 17, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      are you propositioning me again?

      on a side note, how much does mouth love cost? rumor is your nut gargling is second to none.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:51 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      You heard wrong. I eat p..sy

      May 17, 2012 at 7:54 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      you're mistaking p*ssy for hairy nuts. which you gargle. daily.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:56 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      Dude, if you were straight you'd be able to leave these g ay people alone. You can't; case closed.

      May 17, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
  15. Oriental People Aren't That Bad

    FYI, god doesn't exist. The bible is bullshit, so there's really no point in what this article has to say.

    May 17, 2012 at 7:04 am |
  16. James C Edgar

    How could you write this – which is pretty good – AND have written the drivel about Desperate Housewives? Danni, keep it professional.

    May 17, 2012 at 6:58 am |
    • Oriental People Aren't That Bad

      Why do you give a shit in the first place?

      May 17, 2012 at 7:02 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      this article is a turd.

      you can't polish a turd.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:21 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      I stand corrected...MythBusters have shown otherwise.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:25 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      naughty boy, highjacking my name.

      not sure what you're saying was an insult, but i give you 1/2 a point for trying. i love myth busters.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:28 am |
  17. IEH

    I don't have the right to be judge of ANYONE. I think everyone has the right to choose HELL if that is the choice they make. We live in the last days. Every man for himself . Make your choices . I could care less about how YOU choose . I am looking out for MY soul . We all die sooner or later . Cease living and perish at death, or choose eternity . Your choice .

    May 17, 2012 at 6:36 am |
    • Oriental People Aren't That Bad

      You don't have a soul. It's a myth. Reality just punched your face off into the toilet. Now suck it up.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:40 am |
    • Oriental People Aren't That Bad

      Or ignore everything I just wrote because I am pretty ignorant.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:42 am |
    • Oriental People Aren't That Bad

      Oh heck! A clever little fella took my name! Should I be a little bitch and change names because I'm afraid?

      Nah. Ignorance is believing you actually have a soul because cavemen from thousands of years ago couldn't explain natural disasters and credited made-up deities with everything that happened.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:48 am |
    • Oriental People Aren't That Bad

      "Should I be a little bi_tch and change names because I'm afraid?"

      You don't need to change your name again to be that.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:54 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Do you mean the cavemen who built more sophisticated structures than ours . PS. Why can't you people drive better.

      May 17, 2012 at 6:59 am |
    • Oriental People Aren't That Bad

      If you can't copy me properly, don't try. The title is mine : )

      And it's BITCH. What the piss is wrong with your keyboard?

      May 17, 2012 at 6:59 am |
    • Oriental People Aren't That Bad

      Forgive me everyone..it is that time of the month.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:01 am |
    • Oriental People Aren't That Bad

      Mud huts are sophisticated?

      May 17, 2012 at 7:01 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      No but monoliths and.megaliths are that's why we don't build them beauty fears time,time fears the pyramids

      May 17, 2012 at 7:18 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      oh my! aren't you the loving christian!

      May 17, 2012 at 7:22 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Uh no naturalist

      May 17, 2012 at 7:39 am |
  18. Uncouth Swain

    I would have ben more impressed with the President if he had made his statement within a month of him taking office instead of waiting till after his VP ran his mouth on the topic in an election year.

    May 17, 2012 at 6:27 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      if he had raised the issue of g.ay marriage in 2008, he would never have gotten elected. he played it smart, or tried to. he was going to wait till his 2nd term to say he supported g.ay marriage.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:24 am |
  19. Kevin Brundage

    Well Well well!! Tim Tebow is suing his own people! HAHAHAHAHA

    May 17, 2012 at 6:24 am |
  20. The TRUTH

    The mormon LDS church has been in league with the catholic corporate VATICAN in attempts to target gay celebrities to bring negative attention to them and have been giving them different diseases. It began with FREDDIE MERCURY and then they stayed a little quite and are responsible for what happened to KURT COBAIN. After that they made some quiet background noise and then feverishly attacked MICHAEL JACKSON by smuggling skin-bleaching agents into his food and his doctor was a mormon so figure it out people open your eyes! After this they went after RICKEY MARTIN but we not successful and now JOHN TRAVOLTA is being used as a scape goat they will probably harm him! JOHN TRAVOLTA is a gay man and the LDS MORMON CHURCH AND VATICAN ARE TARGETING HIM!!


    People need to spread the news and warn that the GAY community is NOT SAFE from the LDS and VATICAN and they need to be EXPOSDE TO THE PUBLIC!!!

    May 17, 2012 at 6:11 am |
    • BamaDaniel

      Good send them to the moon .

      May 17, 2012 at 6:13 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      take the rest of the christians with you to the moon, pls.

      May 17, 2012 at 7:30 am |
    • Iceman6161

      If i had to choose a g@y person or this God who will burn my family forever if they don't believe in Jesus then i choose a g@y man or woman every time. AS for the flood there are many stories some may been kind of true, but the one of out of the bible is freaking on sum dumb sh!t. no evidence it's all faith. This religion came out of Africa, they stole it just like Europeans stole everything they ever said they did.

      May 17, 2012 at 10:40 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.